Posts by Earnest

11

Scriptural Separation

by Earnest in

jw
friends

at the meeting this evening the co discussed the scriptural basis for separation between husband and wife.

he said there were three grounds for separation :.

1. the man refuses to support his family in a material way.

I had never realised the effect disfellowshipping would have on the principle of headship and spiritual provision for the family. I can understand the difficulties that arise when apostasy is involved as it is difficult to know where to draw the line. For example, if apostasy includes Devil worship I cannot believe God expects the family to follow the man's lead in spiritual matters. On the other hand, if the spiritual lead includes love for God and neighbour it is clearly contrary to scripture to hamper it. This again demonstrates the harm wrought in making rules where none exist.

In the discussion that I had with the CO, as related in the first post, I specifically mentioned the ease with which #3 could be abused by those who wished to separate without good cause. He agreed with me and emphasized that "any Christians who do separate must bear personal responsibility for that action and should realize that all of us will render an account to Jehovah". I am appalled that separation is condoned on such pretexts and agree that God will judge such attacks on that most basic unit.

Earnest

"Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun the frumious Bandernatch!" - Rev. Charles Dodgson

11

Scriptural Separation

by Earnest in

jw
friends

at the meeting this evening the co discussed the scriptural basis for separation between husband and wife.

he said there were three grounds for separation :.

1. the man refuses to support his family in a material way.

Earnest

hi sadie

You asked "did they give the 'scriptures' for these 'scriptural' basis"? I didn't take notes at the time and have delayed replying as I was hoping to hear the talk again. I now realise the material came from an article in the Awake! of February 8, 2002, page 10 :

Divorce and Separation
God, the Originator of marriage, designed it to be a permanent union. But is there any Scriptural reason for a person to divorce his or her mate-and one that would allow for the possibility of remarrying? Jesus addressed this matter by declaring: "I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except on the ground of fornication, and marries another commits adultery." (Matthew 19:9) Sexual infidelity by a mate is the only ground for a divorce that will allow the innocent mate to remarry.
In addition, the Bible's words at 1 Corinthians 7:10-16, while encouraging marriage mates to stay together, allow for separation. Some, after trying very hard to preserve their marriage, feel they have no choice but to separate. What can be acceptable Scriptural grounds for such a step?
One is willful nonsupport. When getting married, a husband assumes the responsibility of providing for his wife and children. The man who willfully fails to provide the material necessities of life "has disowned the faith and is worse than a person without faith." (1 Timothy 5:8) So separation is possible.
Another is extreme physical abuse. So then, if a mate physically abuses his wife, the victim may separate. (Galations 5:19-21; Titus 1:7) "Anyone loving violence [God's] soul certainly hates." - Psalm 11:5.
Another ground for separation is the absolute endangerment of a believer's spirituality-one's relationship with God. When a mate's opposition, perhaps including physical restraint, has made it impossible to pursue true worship and has imperiled the believer's spirituality, then some believers have found it necessary to separate.-Matthew 22:37; Acts 5:27-32.
However, if divorce is pursued under such circumstances, one would not be free to enter a new marriage. According to the Bible, the only legitimate ground for divorce that permits remarriage is adultery or "fornication".-Matthew 5:32.

The Watchtower of November 1, 1988 expanded on these three bases for scriptural separation :

Paul’s words at 1 Corinthians 7:10-16 encourage marriage mates to stay together. Yet, some, after trying very hard to preserve their marriage relationship, have finally decided that, in all conscience, they have no choice but to separate. What may be the grounds for such a step?

Willful nonsupport is one basis for separation. When entering wedlock, a husband assumes the responsibility of providing for his wife and any children they may have. The man who does not provide for members of his household “has disowned the faith and is worse than a person without faith.” (1 Timothy 5:8) So separation is possible if there is willful nonsupport. Of course, appointed elders should give careful consideration to an accusation that a Christian is refusing to support his wife and family. Stubborn refusal to support one’s family may result in disfellowshipping.

Extreme physical abuse is another basis for separation. Suppose an unbelieving mate often gets drunk, becomes enraged, and causes the believer physical harm. (Proverbs 23:29-35) Through prayer and by displaying the fruitage of Jehovah’s spirit, the believer may be able to prevent such outbursts and make the situation endurable. But if the point is reached where the health and life of the abused mate actually are in jeopardy, separation would be allowable Scripturally. Again, congregation elders should look into charges of physical abuse when two Christians are involved in the troubled marriage, and disfellowshipping action may have to be taken.—Compare Galatians 5:19-21; Titus 1:7.

Absolute endangerment of spirituality also provides a basis for separation. The believer in a religiously divided home should do everything possible to take advantage of God’s spiritual provisions. But separation is allowable if an unbelieving mate’s opposition (perhaps including physical restraint) makes it genuinely impossible to pursue true worship and actually imperils the believer’s spirituality. Yet, what if a very unhealthy spiritual state exists where both mates are believers? The elders should render assistance, but especially should the baptized husband work diligently to remedy the situation. Of course, if a baptized marriage partner acts like an apostate and tries to prevent his mate from serving Jehovah, the elders should handle matters according to the Scriptures. If disfellowshipping takes place in a case involving absolute endangerment of spirituality, willful nonsupport, or extreme physical abuse, the faithful Christian who seeks a legal separation would not be going against Paul’s counsel about taking a believer to court.—1 Corinthians 6:1-8.

If circumstances are extreme, then, separation may be warranted. But flimsy pretexts obviously should not be used to obtain a separation. Any Christians who do separate must bear personal responsibility for that action and should realize that all of us will render an account to Jehovah.—Hebrews 4:13.

In Divided Households

Being reasonable aids in resolving marital problems between Christian mates. (Philippians 4:5) But reasonableness is also important if peace is threatened in a religiously divided household. If an unbelieving husband tries to prevent his Christian wife from serving Jehovah, she may endeavor to reason with him, tactfully pointing out that she accords him religious freedom and she should logically receive similar treatment. (Matthew 7:12) Though she is to be in relative subjection to her unbelieving husband, God’s will must be done where there is a conflict. (1 Corinthians 11:3; Acts 5:29) Surely, attending Christian meetings three times a week is not excessive. But the believing wife may find it wise to be at home on other evenings and to schedule much of her field ministry during hours when her husband is working and the children are in school. With reasonableness and good planning, she need not “give up in doing what is fine.”—Galatians 6:9.

Reasonableness extends to other matters too. For example, a person has a right to practice a certain religion. But it would be reasonable and wise for a Christian wife not to place her Bibles and Bible study aids where a strongly opposed husband might object. Conflict may be avoided if such publications are kept among her personal effects and she studies them privately. Of course, she must not compromise on righteous principles.—Matthew 10:16.

If disruption of domestic peace centers on religious instruction of the children, the believing wife can tactfully arrange to have them accompany her to meetings and in the field ministry. But if the unbelieving husband and father prevents this, she can teach the children Bible principles so that when they grow up and leave home, they are likely to pursue true worship. If the husband is the believer, as the head of the household, he has the Scriptural obligation to raise his children as Christians. So he should study the Bible with them, take them to meetings, and teach them in the field ministry. (Ephesians 6:4) Naturally, he should be kind, loving, and reasonable in dealing with his unbelieving wife.

Hope this helps.

Earnest

"Beware the Jubjub bird and shun the frumious Bandersnatch!" - Rev. Charles Dodgson

14

More Underwater Civilisations

by Earnest in

jw
friends

at 21:00 gmt tonight there is a programme on channel 4 entitled "flooded kingdoms of the ice age".

author graham hancock scours the seas for evidence of the earliest civilisations, which he believes were submerged when the polar ice caps melted at the end of the last ice age.

in tonight's programme hancock makes some finds off the west coast of malta and along the "bimini road", a megalithic structure in the atlantic.. no doubt those who believe in a universal flood will continue to do so and those who don't will not, but it will add to the larger picture that we have on this subject.. earnest.

Earnest

I agree that these reports do not provide proof of a global flood. However, it is clear to me that the diversity of these accounts together with the many flood myths that abound indicate that there was a catastrophe of global dimensions in the recent (geologically speaking) past.

Mr. Hancock reminds me a bit of Erich van Daniken who wrote a number of books some years ago to demonstrate that archaeology proved aliens once visited the planet. I think he (Graham Hancock) sometimes reads more into underwater structures than they actually say. Nevertheless, we should not ignore what is there simply because it is exaggerated. And I have the feeling that the sum of these many discoveries is greater than their parts but am unsure what that sum will prove to be. I suspect we will each consider the evidence and come to different conclusions but I hope that each discovery we learn of will cause us to re-examine the conclusions we have reached.

Earnest

14

More Underwater Civilisations

by Earnest in

jw
friends

at 21:00 gmt tonight there is a programme on channel 4 entitled "flooded kingdoms of the ice age".

author graham hancock scours the seas for evidence of the earliest civilisations, which he believes were submerged when the polar ice caps melted at the end of the last ice age.

in tonight's programme hancock makes some finds off the west coast of malta and along the "bimini road", a megalithic structure in the atlantic.. no doubt those who believe in a universal flood will continue to do so and those who don't will not, but it will add to the larger picture that we have on this subject.. earnest.

Earnest

Today The Guardian reported the discovery of what appears to be a temple complex up to a mile off the coast of Tamil Nadu, India. This would seem to corroborate the Tamil myth referred to in the post above. The full report, entitled "Divers 'discover' ancient temple", can be read at http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,682031,00.html and is copied below.

Indian and British scientists have brought back pictures from the seabed of what they say could be a vast temple complex off the coast of Tamil Nadu - the ruins of a long-lost city, drowned beneath the waves.
The granite ruins, if they are not natural formations, could be what remains of six legendary temples built 1,500 to 1,200 years ago, submerged as a result of natural subsidence.
However, Graham Hancock, the best-selling author of controversial books about lost civilisations, said the ruins could be much older. If they were submerged by globally rising sea levels, their age would be around 5,000 years.
The pictures are the result of a three day diving expedition by India's National Institute of Oceanography and the Dorset-based Scientific Exploration Society. Mr Hancock, who dived with the team, said yesterday that SES had carried out the expedition at his suggestion.
"Our divers were presented with a series of structures that clearly showed man-made attributes," said Monty Halls of the SES, who led the expedition.
"This is plainly a discovery of international significance that demands further exploration and detailed investigation."
The site lies at depths of five to seven metres, 500 to 700 metres off Mahabalipuram, the site of a temple on dry land that dates to the first millennium AD.
Mr Hancock, who is not an archaeologist and has infuriated many experts with his theories, said that he had inferred the existence of six temples underwater by collating the stories of local fishermen with a legend that referred to Mahabalipuram as the Seven Pagodas.
Mr Hancock admitted yesterday that the submerged ruins might not be old enough to relate to the kind of post-ice age flooding that destroyed the supposed civilisations of his books.
But he said their discovery vindicated his approach of seeking the substance in local myths. "I have argued for years that the world's flood myths deserve to be taken seriously - a view that most western academics reject. But here in Mahabalipuram we have proved the myths right."
Mr Hancock said the site ran for about two kilometres, and contained "a large conglomeration of large, clean-cut blocks in discrete areas. They seemed like several large ceremonial buildings surrounded by a lot of smaller ones."

This is your local underwater civilisation news-spotter signing off.

Earnest

116

WHAT ABOUT THE STUMBLING BLOCKS?

by You Know in

the underlying assumption of the apostasy is that if the watchtower falls short to a significant degree then it cannot be jehovahs organization.

thats why apostates are hopeful that if enough fault can be found with the organization and brought to the attention of the faithful, then they too will accept the conclusion that jehovahs witnesses are not who we say we are.

unquestionably, many have been stumbled over a multitude of stumbling blocks.

Earnest

YouKnow:

I suggested that Luther had more evidence then that the Catholic Church was God's organization than we have now regarding JWs. I see no point in producing a lengthy argument to that effect as it is outside the scope of your thread and, besides, I think Luther was wrong in that conclusion. But I had in mind that the Catholic Church had determined the Bible canon and had preserved the text for over a thousand years in their monasteries and scriptoria. There simply was no other contender at that time.

But while I agree with you that inconsistencies and error and stumbling does not disqualify a church as being God's people - it all happened to the first century Christians as well - I would hardly consider it in support of such a claim.

Earnest

116

WHAT ABOUT THE STUMBLING BLOCKS?

by You Know in

the underlying assumption of the apostasy is that if the watchtower falls short to a significant degree then it cannot be jehovahs organization.

thats why apostates are hopeful that if enough fault can be found with the organization and brought to the attention of the faithful, then they too will accept the conclusion that jehovahs witnesses are not who we say we are.

unquestionably, many have been stumbled over a multitude of stumbling blocks.

Earnest

YouKnow,

What you say is doubtless true and the scripture about the love of the greater number cooling off has also been applied to those within the Christian congregation. But the question I have to ask myself (and you) is how this differs from the position of the Catholic Church at the time of the Reformation. Luther wanted to reform from within because he believed everything you have just said applied to the Catholic Church. And he had more evidence then that it was God's organization than we have now regarding JWs.

Likewise, the same argument could be applied to other churches. If inconsistencies and error and stumbling are evidence for being "the truth" there are an awful lot of faiths that qualify.

Earnest

41

How Would You Respond?

by silentlambs in

jw
friends

below is an email i received this morning, can you feel the love from the spiritual paradise?

this brings it to a new level of accusations, now i am apparently gay according to the jw gossip mill.

i will have to add that to the list.

Earnest

AlanF,

I am surprised at your response to thewiz who expressed his view that contributors to this forum use criticism of spelling and grammar to discredit supporters of the WTS.

You may not agree with his viewpoint and you provided a number of reasons you believed it to be wrong, which is fair enough. But you then go on to use expressions like "you obviously lack the mental capacity to understand such a simple thing", "Another simple observation about your intellectual lack", "Are you so filled with a dull sense of self-importance". And you then ridicule any response he might make with "If you respond to my post, you'll likely again show a lack of mental ability...". All these phrases are simply ridicule and a form of intellectual intimidation and I think them unworthy of you. I took his expression "week-man-week" as ironic but you may be right that his spelling is also under par.

At the same time I should add that all your correspondence with me has shown the courtesy I would expect from a fellow truth-seeker. I always look forward to reading your posts and regret this departure from fair discussion. On a more personal note, please keep us informed of your daughter's progress. Both her recovery and your feelings as parents have been regularly on my mind and I'm sure that is true of many on this forum.

Best wishes,

Earnest

Edited to say I've just read your update on daughter and family. Thanks for letting us know.

31

Whats the truth about 1914?

by Leander in

jw
friends

i've heard on a few occasions from my research on the internet that 1914 really does not have the significance that wtbs assigns to it.

from my limited understanding on the matter it involves the wtbs moving the date of the destruction of jerusalem.. can someone give me a little more detail on this or provide a link with a website that does?.

if its true that the wts has manipulated historical dates and bible scriptures to support this date of 1914 then that would mean everything else crumbles.. thanks for any info on this

Earnest

YouKnow,

I completely agree with your statement that "it seems totally unreasonable that our faith should be based upon reconciling lunar eclipses to fragments of secular history or whatever."

Students of the Bible have always tried to use chronology to determine when prophecies would be fulfilled and have usually been disappointed. Even the prophecy of the sixty-nine weeks in Daniel chapter 9 was not referred to by any of the Gospel writers although with hindsight most Christians can use chronology to "prove" it applies to Jesus.

The fact is that Jesus said "it does not belong to [Christians] to get knowledge of the times or seasons which the Father has placed in his own jurisdiction". (Compare Mark 13:32) And, as AlanF pointed out, he also warned that "at an hour that you do not think to be it, the Son of man is coming."

This does not mean we should not have a sense of urgency or that we are not living in the time of the end. Quite clearly we will not know that until "the end" is upon us. But rather than indulge in the rather woolly science of biblical chronology we should "keep our senses" and strengthen faith, love and hope (1 Thess. 5:8).

The belief that this is "the Lord's day" has led the WTS to apply every aspect of the prophecies in Revelation to our day and particularly to Jehovah's Witnesses themselves. In many cases it would clearly have been more prudent to admit ignorance than to try and force fulfillment to coincide with 1914 A.D.

Earnest

"Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun the frumious Bandersnatch!" - Rev. Charles Dodgson.

41

How Would You Respond?

by silentlambs in

jw
friends

below is an email i received this morning, can you feel the love from the spiritual paradise?

this brings it to a new level of accusations, now i am apparently gay according to the jw gossip mill.

i will have to add that to the list.

Earnest

Why dignify filth with a response ?

Earnest

6

WT says flags are OK

by apostate man in

jw
friends

look closely at the cover of this book and tell me gods army does not have a flag.

it says "jehovah" on the flag.. .

break the chains that bind you,.

Earnest

Its not really a case of flags being ok or not. There are a number of places in the Bible where it refer to banners or ensigns.

Exodus 17:15 (World English Bible)
"Moses built an altar, and called the name of it Yahweh our Banner"

Isaiah 30:17 (ASV)
"One thousand [shall flee] at the threat of one...till ye be left as a beacon upon the top of a mountain, and as an ensign on a hill."

Numbers 21:8 (ASV)
"And Jehovah said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a standard"

But my guess is that the cover of the book was based on Jeremiah 50:2 which reads (in the Darby Bible):

"Declare ye among the nations, and publish, and lift up a banner; publish, conceal not! Say, Babylon is taken, Bel is put to shame, Merodach is dismayed: her images are put to shame, her idols are dismayed."

Earnest

"Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun the frumious Bandernatch!" - Rev. Charles Dodgson